ould point me into the right direction...
Anyway, my thoughts on this are that with an optional ini-setting the
userland definition of __autoload() could be automatically skipped. Any
comments on this?
Kind regards
Thorsten Suckow-Homberg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Maili
Hi Marcus,
> no new INI settings, if require use the include_path done.
thanks for the quick reply. I'm not aware of the "political" decisions that
have to be made / had been made to come to this conclusion, but AFAICS no
additional "low level" plugin is being hindered in letting the users add
pper for include/require, adding a little bit more logic to
it.
Best regards
Thorsten Suckow-Homberg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> Me too. There seems to be quite of bit of demand (in the commerce sense of
> the word, I'm not demanding anything) for namespaces, but it's hard to
> find any solid info on why they were removed from PHP.
AFAIR the implementation back then brought some huge performance problems
with it, that'
> function a($b) {}
> a(1,2,3);
> ?>
>
> PHP accepts this and generates no errors. My purpose is to start
> generating an E_NOTICE, just like we do for not yet initialized variables.
This would break BC (btw a hot topic nowadays, too ;) ) so this is not a
good idea. Also it makes no sense in an
